| | #1 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Up your Mom's filthy snatch
Posts: 6,781
| ....is signed so far below his market value (compare his contract to Zambrano, Carlos and, especially Zito, Barry) that he'd surely declare for free agency after his first year with the team that receives him in trade (a player traded in the middle of a longterm contract has the right to demand a trade or renegotiate after year #1). Anyone thinking that trading for him is more advantageous than trading for Johan Santana is not taking this rule into consideration. Besides, why in hell would the Astros trade one of about 5 MLB legitimate #1 starters who costs so little? Long and short - cut out the stupid "let's get Oswalt" scenarios, "he's longterm and cheap!!!!" Dumbassess......
__________________ "The place where optimism most flourishes is the lunatic asylum." - Havelock Ellis |
| | |
| | |
| | #2 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,053
| Quote:
I agree that the Astros probably won't trade him, though it doesn't hurt to ask. But IF the Mets traded for him, 1) They'd be foolish not to be prepared to re-negotiate if necessary. 2) At his salary, they could easily get equal value in return if he actually demanded a trade. 3) They could still go after Santana as a FA. Slim as the chance might be, he's worth a try. 3)
__________________ TPFKABM | |
| | #3 (permalink) | |
| Administrator Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,282
| Quote:
__________________ Outfield | |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 364
| The point is that teams don't trade players with favorable (for the team) contracts - particularly top shelf pitchers who just turned 30. No one who has ever had that right to demand or trade or go FA has ever followed it through until the end because the reason most were dealt in the first place is that they were OVER-paid and don't want to risk what deal may replace it. The problem is that the whole WFAN crew - led by Francesa - still talks about Oswalt as if he's liable to be traded at any moment based on nothing more than that year-and-a-half old Baltimore story which was: a) before Houston signed Oswalt to a long-term extension and b) never really true to begin with. Meanwhile, fans hear that yapping and start making up making up silly mock deals which they'll then probably blame Omar for not getting done. |
| | #5 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,053
| Quote:
And I don't give a damn about the "next team". It's only relevant because if he demands a trade and gets one, he has no choice of where he'd go and loses the right to negotiate or demand a trade. The thought of going to a place he won't like, AND losing his re-negotiation right is something that would affect his decision. And I said nothing about any team he'd sign with as a FA. I said the Mets could still sign Santana as a FA. Other than all of the above, you're "close". I don't remember any player who actually has demanded a trade or became a FA as a result of that rule, though there may have been one or two.
__________________ TPFKABM Last edited by Rey-YES : 10-15-2007 at 01:23 AM. | |
| | #6 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: 2016
Posts: 6,026
| You can't deal for 28 year old lefthanders who win multiple CY Young awards in the American league that are going to be free agents. DO NOT FORGET, they are not NL PROVEN. Oswalt on the other hand, there are no pitfalls. Frank should be killed for making it rain in Medford. The world is perfect. Lets go toss a game of pooh-sticks. |
| |
| |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Interesting Oswalt Tidbit (Houston Chronicle) | Bay Ridge Dave | Mets Archive | 49 | 07-13-2007 11:28 AM |